Diagnose research quality and guide systematic query expansion. Use when starting research on any topic, when stuck in research, or when unsure if research is complete.
Systematic research query expansion and completion assessment. Transforms basic questions into comprehensive search strategies.
Symptoms: Jumping straight to searching without analyzing the topic. Test: Can you articulate stakeholders, temporal scope, and domain mapping? Intervention: Run Phase 0 Analysis Template before generating queries.
Symptoms: Using outsider/introductory terminology. Finding only surface-level material. Test: Have you identified expert vs. outsider terms? Terms across domains? Intervention: Build vocabulary map. Hunt for "also known as," "technically called" in early sources.
Symptoms: All queries support one viewpoint. Missing counterarguments. Have you explicitly searched for opposing perspectives? Generate competing perspectives queries. Search for strongest counterargument.
Symptoms: Searching only in familiar field. Missing cross-disciplinary insights. Test: Have you mapped terminology variants across fields? Intervention: Identify what adjacent fields call this topic. Search in at least 2 domains. Update vocabulary map.
Symptoms: Only recent sources. Missing historical context. Test: Can you explain when this topic emerged and how it evolved? Intervention: Add historical context queries. Find seminal works.
Symptoms: Many tabs, no synthesis. Can't explain core concepts. Test: Can you define key terms in your own words? Intervention: Apply 3-source rule per perspective. Summarize before searching more.
Symptoms: Unsure whether to continue or stop. Research expanding indefinitely. Test: Can you answer the tiered completion criteria? Intervention: Run completion checklist. Look for diminishing returns signals.
Symptoms: Can explain topic, identify uncertainties, and take action. Indicators: Circular references, repetitive findings, sufficient for purpose.
Symptoms: Starting from scratch each session. Re-discovering same vocabulary. Test: Did you check for prior research before starting? Are you storing findings? Intervention: Store vocabulary map, sources, digested notes, and gaps for future use.
Symptoms: Over-researching trivial questions. Under-researching critical decisions. Test: Is research depth proportional to decision stakes? Intervention: Apply scope calibration. Match confidence level to decision reversibility and stakes.
Symptoms: Hedging language everywhere. Reader can't tell what's certain vs. speculative. Test: Can reader distinguish established facts from speculation? Intervention: Use explicit confidence markers. State source quality and consensus status.
Before searching, structure your topic:
# Research Analysis: [Topic]
## Core Concepts
- **Primary terms:** [Key terms requiring definition]
- **Terminology variants:** [Synonyms, jargon, historical terms]
- **Ambiguous terms:** [Terms with multiple meanings]
## Stakeholders
- **Primary actors:** [Who is directly involved?]
- **Affected groups:** [Who bears consequences?]
- **Opposing interests:** [Who benefits from different outcomes?]
## Temporal Scope
- **Historical origins:** [When did this begin?]
- **Key transitions:** [What changed and when?]
- **Current state:** [What's happening now?]
## Domains
- **Primary field:** [Main discipline]
- **Adjacent fields:** [Related disciplines]
## Controversies
- **Active debates:** [What's contested?]
- **Competing frameworks:** [Different ways of understanding]
Stop when:
| Pattern | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmation Trap | Searching to confirm, not learn | Search for strongest counterargument |
| Authority Fallacy | Accepting claims by source prestige | Evaluate evidence, not source |
| Recency Trap | Only recent sources | Explicitly search historical periods |
| Breadth Trap | 50 tabs, none read | 3-source rule, summarize before continuing |
| Single-Source | Wikipedia as final answer | Require 3 independent sources |
| Jargon Blind Spot | Missing other fields' terminology | Map variants, search multiple domains |
| Infinite Rabbit Hole | Lost original purpose | Write decision/action anchor, return to it |
Primary research deliverable. Vocabulary determines search space and LLM semantic activation.
## Core Terms
| Term | Domain | Depth Level |
|------|--------|-------------|
| [expert term] | [field] | Expert |
| [outsider term] | General | Introductory |
## Cross-Domain Synonyms
| Concept | Terms by Domain |
|---------|-----------------|
| [concept] | Field A: [term], Field B: [term] |
## Depth Indicators
| Level | Terms | What They Surface |
|-------|-------|-------------------|
| Introductory | [terms] | Overviews, explainers |
| Expert | [terms] | Research, nuanced analysis |
Store both sources AND digested results. Don't start from scratch.
| Layer | Contents |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary Map | Terms, domains, depth levels |
| Sources | PDFs, saved pages, bookmarks |
| Digested Notes | Summaries, key quotes, synthesis |
| Query Log | Searches that worked/failed |
| Gaps | What remains unknown |
Check for prior research. Load vocabulary map. Start where you left off.
When research runs without follow-up questions (agent execution, time-boxed queries):
| Decision Type | Confidence Needed | Research Depth |
|---|---|---|
| Reversible, low-stakes | 60-70% | Quick scan (minutes) |
| Reversible, moderate | 75-85% | Working knowledge (1-2 hours) |
| Irreversible, moderate | 85-90% | Solid grounding (half day) |
| Irreversible, high | 90-95% | Deep expertise (days) |
| Pattern | Strategy |
|---|---|
| "What is X?" | 2-3 authoritative sources, establish consensus |
| "Should I X?" | Pros/cons, alternatives, conditions for each |
| "Is X true?" | Primary sources, counter-evidence, consensus check |
| "How do I X?" | Step-by-step, prerequisites, common pitfalls |
| Source | Best For |
|---|---|
| Wikipedia/Encyclopedias | Orientation, terminology, citation hunting |
| Academic papers | Mechanism, causation, methodology |
| Practitioner content | How things actually work, edge cases |
| Official docs | Technical specs, policy, procedures |
## Summary
[Direct answer to question]
## Confidence Level
[High/Medium/Low] - [Justification]
## Key Findings
1. [Finding with source type]
## Caveats
- [What wasn't consulted]
- [What assumptions were made]
## For Deeper Investigation
[What would increase confidence]
| Level | Phrases |
|---|---|
| Established | "X is...", "X works by..." |
| Strong evidence | "Evidence strongly suggests..." |
| Moderate evidence | "Most sources report..." |
| Limited evidence | "One study found..." |
| Unknown | "No reliable information found..." |
During research, ask:
| Skill | Connection |
|---|---|
| doppelganger | Research informs decisions; apply /truth-check to findings |
| context-networks | Store research findings in appropriate network node |
| boundary-critique | Apply to advice and recommendations encountered |
This skill writes primary output to files so work persists across sessions.
Before doing any other work:
context/output-config.md in the projectexplorations/research/ or a sensible location for this projectcontext/output-config.md if context network exists.research-output.md at project root otherwiseFor this skill, persist:
| Goes to File | Stays in Conversation |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary map | Discussion of term discovery |
| Synthesis document | Query refinement iterations |
| Source list with assessments | Real-time source evaluation |
| Gap analysis | Clarifying questions |
| Confidence-marked findings | Follow-up investigations |
Pattern: {topic}-research-{date}.md
Example: competency-frameworks-research-2025-01-15.md
The "Research Persistence" section above describes WHAT to store. This section operationalizes WHERE and HOW - ensuring the skill checks for configured locations, asks the user when needed, and writes output consistently.
Derived from: frameworks/research/research-framework.md